Applying God's Word to Politics

[GWH]

Sorry you live in a State that permits abortions, the State I live in prohibits licensed medical professionals from providing services resulting in an "untimely births" except in cases that the life of the mother is at risk. In such the medical professional are allowed to separate the unborn from the mother's womb in manner that doesn't destroy, damage or mutilate the unborn nor damages the uterus or any other internal organs of the mother.

So yes, I approve of the status quo in my State. But I am a progressive.

It sounds like you live in a MAGA state, whereas the Dem policies are regressive.
I hope every state will become like yours, and limiting abortion to pre-sentience,
which is stricter than viability by about three months, is progress toward that goal in the Dem states.

 

[OMC]

The reason the scriptures never teach the two stage model is because one has to have a teacher first. If your teacher didn't teach man how to read and write the written spoken word then you must believe that man taught himself how to read and write. So did you?

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again John 3:7

That argument actually proves the opposite of what you're trying to prove. The fact that a teacher is required before reading and writing does not establish a two‑stage ontology of human existence; it establishes that knowledge is transmitted.
Genesis does not say Adam first existed as a nonliving seed and later became a living being after instruction.
It says God formed the man, breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7).
The becoming occurs at the union of body and breath.
Likewise, when Jesus says, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7), He is not teaching that a person first exists spiritually as one thing and later becomes another through teaching.
He is teaching the necessity of spiritual regeneration by the Spirit of God.
A teacher may proclaim truth, but the new birth itself is God's work (John 1:13; John 3:6-8).
So you're moving from "instruction requires a teacher" to "existence requires a prior two-stage model," and that leap is not found in the text.
Scripture certainly teaches that learning requires teachers, preaching, and hearing (Romans 10:14-17), but it never uses that fact to redefine when a human becomes a living being or to support a seed‑first, person‑later framework.

 

[OMC]

Not every person accepts the Bible as authoritative, thus they cannot be expected to comply with its demands just because you choose to. That is a simple fact and one protected by the US Constitution, it is called FREEDOM OF RELIGION. You are not allowed to force your religious views on another person. You may personally hold whatever views you want, but forcing another person to hold your views is anti-American, nor is it loving, which makes it anti-Christian. The Bible never teaches that you should FORCE its teachings on another, you may present them, show by your own life that you live them and hopefully your life is righteous enough that another wishes to follow your lead, but you are not to force them on the other person. Those who attempt to force their understanding on others are called in the Bible Pharisees. Are you a Parisee?

You're changing the subject from "Is it morally wrong?" to "Can the government force you to agree?"
Those are not the same question.
A Christian arguing that abortion is the intentional taking of innocent human life is making a moral claim, not establishing a state church.
Freedom of religion means the government cannot compel worship or prohibit it; it does not mean moral arguments are disqualified from public discussion.
By that logic, a Christian could not oppose theft, murder, perjury, or exploitation if his reasons came from Scripture.
The real issue is whether the unborn are human beings and whether intentionally killing innocent human beings is morally permissible.
Simply saying, "Not everyone accepts the Bible," does not answer either question.
People disagree about every moral standard, yet laws still exist because societies make judgments about right and wrong.

The Pharisee comparison also misses the target.
The Pharisees were condemned for hypocrisy, elevating their traditions above God's word, and burdening others while refusing to obey themselves (Matthew 23).
Merely appealing to Scripture as an authority does not make someone a Pharisee.
In fact, if two Christians are debating what Scripture teaches, then both sides have already accepted Scripture as the authority under discussion.
The question becomes: what does the text say?
If the text presents the unborn as children in the womb, known by God, formed by God, and never excluded from the command against shedding innocent blood, then the argument must be answered from the text itself, not by appealing to constitutional rights or religious pluralism.
The world-system being echoed here is relativism: shifting the debate from whether something is true or morally right to whether everyone agrees with the authority being cited. Truth is not established by majority acceptance, and Scripture never teaches that a moral claim becomes false simply because some people reject God's authority.

 

[rewriter]

You're changing the subject from "Is it morally wrong?" to "Can the government force you to agree?"
Those are not the same question.
A Christian arguing that abortion is the intentional taking of innocent human life is making a moral claim, not establishing a state church.
Freedom of religion means the government cannot compel worship or prohibit it; it does not mean moral arguments are disqualified from public discussion.
By that logic, a Christian could not oppose theft, murder, perjury, or exploitation if his reasons came from Scripture.
The real issue is whether the unborn are human beings and whether intentionally killing innocent human beings is morally permissible.
Simply saying, "Not everyone accepts the Bible," does not answer either question.
People disagree about every moral standard, yet laws still exist because societies make judgments about right and wrong.

The Pharisee comparison also misses the target.
The Pharisees were condemned for hypocrisy, elevating their traditions above God's word, and burdening others while refusing to obey themselves (Matthew 23).
Merely appealing to Scripture as an authority does not make someone a Pharisee.
In fact, if two Christians are debating what Scripture teaches, then both sides have already accepted Scripture as the authority under discussion.
The question becomes: what does the text say?
If the text presents the unborn as children in the womb, known by God, formed by God, and never excluded from the command against shedding innocent blood, then the argument must be answered from the text itself, not by appealing to constitutional rights or religious pluralism.
The world-system being echoed here is relativism: shifting the debate from whether something is true or morally right to whether everyone agrees with the authority being cited. Truth is not established by majority acceptance, and Scripture never teaches that a moral claim becomes false simply because some people reject God's authority.

Christian morals apply to Christians. Generic morals belong to the government. Theft and generally recognized murder are generic morality, but abortion is not generally recognized as murder, not even all Christians can agree on that point.

I am not shifting the argument, rather you are shifting it. Freedom of religion is the law of the land, seeking to impose Christian morality on non-Christians is a violation of freedom of religion. As Christians we need to work within the governmental boundaries whether we agree with the limits or not. Remember, Jesus said to render to Caesar the things that are of Caesar, and to God the things that are of God. Governmental laws are human matters, not God's. We can seek to influence the governmental laws to more closely align, but that is all